This blog is posted from a now retired 33 year CAW (now UNIFOR) member. The purpose of this blog is to allow others to see the perspective of the average worker, rather than the views of the Union Leadership If you have any concerns or comments on this blog, contact me at Email:paulsblues45@hotmail.com
On Twitter: @PaulinAjax

Friday, June 5, 2009

The Coalition? It Was All About Bloc MP's Pensions Stupid

All credit for this post goes to Bec, who left this comment "18 months of support/veto power (call it what it is)= time needed for Bloc MPs to receive MP's pensions " at Alberta Ardvark's

So it turns out the Bloc signing on to the coalition agreement really had nothing to do with the Conservative government led by Stephen Harper as PM, and had everything to do with Gilles Duceppe ensuring 16 of his seperatist MP's would be able to suck off the Canadian taxpayer's teat. I've known for sometime that there are a number of Bloc MP's who are closing in on the required 6 years of service needed to guarantee a lucrative federal pension plan mere mortals can only dream about. Bec's comment at Alberta Ardvark's fantastic blog made my brain finally put 2+2 together.

First, pay attention to this, from when the coalition was first signed:

"OTTAWA–NDP Leader Jack Layton and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion have signed an historic accord to form a coalition government to replace Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.In an extraordinary scene on Parliament Hill late this afternoon, Dion and Layton signed a formal deal to work together through to June, 2011.And they signed an agreement with Bloc Quebecois Gilles Duceppe that commits the separatist party to support the coalition through to June, 2010."Now check out this quote from L. Ian McDonald's editorial in the National Post today:

" There are 16 reasons why there won't be an election this summer, and probably won't be one before next summer. Sixteen is the number of Bloc Quebecois MPs first elected with the class of 2004, who will qualify for their parliamentary pensions six years to the day later. On June 28, 2010."So months after the birth and death of the coalition, we continue to see just how disgusting the coalition deal really was. You had a Liberal party that wanted to take power through the back door, after their worst electoral showing since Confederation. You had the NDP who were willing to sell their souls for the chance at six cabinet minister's position's. And you had the Bloc, who it now appears, were only looking out for themselves, not the people of Quebec who's cause they insist they champion.

But what makes this even worse than most Canadians had realized, is that both the Liberal and NDP parties were willing to allow seperatist MP's a chance to live high on the hog on the backs of average Canadian's like you and I, for their own personal gains. There is no doubt both parties are aware of that June 2010 qualifying date for Bloc MP's.

And they had the nerve to state it was all about taking care of Canadian's. And they wonder why people are turned off of politics.

Eric, one thing I was wondering is how you get the hyphen above the letter "E" in your name. I'm not very computer savvy. When replying to you or others I would like to be able to address you or them in the way you prefer your name spelled.

There will be no summer election. Ignatieff has gone back to what he has done best over the years - does best - flogging his book on Isaiah Berlin at United Kingdom university campuses. This is booked for July 8 - tickets already on sale. He is charging 120 pounds per seat and is now marketing himself as "the HONOURABLE Michael Ignatieff".If you google he made a living flogging this book on a lecture tour and then he could put on his resume that he was a "visiting professor" at Yale, Oxford, etc.Funny he is not doing a lecture on his latest "True Patriot Love" mea culpa written to woo us simpleton Canadians. Guess nobody would pay him 120 pounds to gush about smelling horse manure in a barn in Quebec. Also, I guess his work is done in Canada for now after he can't showboat on Question Period and he's off to England. TaTa Mikey.

Here is the link for Ignatieff's excellent summer vacation plans in jolly old England returning to his former job - selling books and talking about them.I wonder who is paying for his hotel, airfare and expences. Not sure the taxpayer should or even the Liberal party. Not too many constituents to serve in the UK or votes to be had methinks. Hmmmmm. http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=1827

Did Iggy or the backroom boys want his travel plans out there for us all to read. Does his caucus know about this. Might be a great time to pull the plug. I know, the wind is blowing him across the sea. Is the money raised his or the partys. So, there will be no election called in June, or a vote of no confidence. One could defeat Iggy in his riding and save us loads of pension funds. When does IRuby qualify.

-- "By the way, that seat projection site you run is very well done. My compliments."

Thanks. I have trouble seeing the Bloc losing 20 seats, though. They might lose ten or so but will likely gain almost as many from the Conservatives.

In retrospect, sorry for the tone of my last comment. The comments on the Aardvark blog today set me off.

-- "Eric, one thing I was wondering is how you get the hyphen above the letter "E" in your name. I'm not very computer savvy. When replying to you or others I would like to be able to address you or them in the way you prefer your name spelled."

While holding ALT, 0201 on the number pad.

Michael Ignatieff would be able to cancel speaking engagements in the case of an election. Ignatieff won't be deciding whether we go to an election anyway. Jack Layton already said he won't bring down the Tories, and the Liberals and Bloc can't out-vote the government without the NDP.

Has Layton positioned himself that strongly? I haven't gotten that impression.

Layton has the most to lose (aside from the Tories), his caucus could be cut in half. The Liberals might be able to get into government and the Bloc could return to the Quebec City region with the disappearance of the Conservatives.

It would be a bad idea for Layton to support a Liberal non-confidence motion.

As to the projections, I take into account past voting behaviour back to 2004. I don't think other projectors do the same thing.

I'll look for the link but everyone who read the story thought Layton meant he would support the government. There was one line in the article where Layton stated if Ignatieff put forth a non-confidence motion he would go along with it.

I think right now there is a lot of posturing going on. Ignatieff would love to break the trend of Liberal's supporting the Conservative's, and force either the Bloc or NDP to assume that role.

Exposed! For those of you that have posted that this is not the reason, are you pretending that the BLOC agreed to the Coalition for the love of Canada? More like their entitlements from Canada. Politics are volatile in that great soup of Canada - Quebec politics. Look at the recent polling that the Liberals are surging in Quebec. Too bad the residents of that province are so selfserving - no such thing as the greater good, its all about leverage and how do we make this work to our advantage. Cheers Fern StAlbert

If Jack wants to play political chicken with the Libs,he's got the first opp day.Dippers could table a motion about EI that includes 'permanent' changes.Libs vote against.Then dippers can vote against Lib opp day motion.

Looking back, seems like I only missed one faux scandal RaittGate...The Iffy lead Libs have been a disappointment, I thought PMSH would have a tougher fight on his hands,which brings the best out in him.

Looks like all the opps gave the auto bailout a pass.Tho Gilles will use the 'you love Ontario more than us' card, later.I can't wait to see Iffy juggle that one! lol

Maybe it's because I was gone for a few days,but to me the Libs and Bloc are so predictable, they are boring.

Funny the Bloc brought out truth ads, using Iffy's own words...that's the first time the Bloc copied rather than put out original ads, strange eh.Waiting to hear msm rant about how mean and nasty Duceppe is to attack King Iffy and insult immigrants...crickets.

OT again paul...but further to Layton's 'six-minute wait time stupidity' just do a search on Brian Sinclair! For those of you not aware,this is a man that DIED after spending 34 HRS IN EMERG WITHOUT BEING SEEN! He had a bladder infection that would have been fixed up with some antibiotics,yet he sat..alone.. in a wheelchair in Health Sciences Center in Wpg..and died alone!Yeah Jacko,all's good in public healthcare!

No problem Sammy. I remember that incident. Imagine the struggle his family and friends went through knowing he died for no reason.

In my case, I've had two sinus surgeries in the last 10 years becuase the ER doctor never thought I needed x-rays after getting 12 stiches across the bridge of my nose in hockey. My septum had been crushed and if taken care of at the time it would have saved me a lot of misery over the years.

I don't think so. The Bloc signed on because, at the time, two parties (the Libs and NDP) agreed to give them some power in government, which would allow them to plant the seeds of dissent in Canada, which is their natural mandate.

To show that Canada doesn't work is their raison d'etre. I question the motives more of the Liberals and NDP, signing deals with them. I haven't forgotten that Ignatieff's signature is on that deal.

You know, I just thought of a big hole with this theory. There wasn't going to be an election at the time of the coalition talks, and the NDP and Liberals were unable to bring down the Conservatives without the support of the Bloc.

Jumping on board with the coalition and keeping his hands tied to them until the pensions kicked in would have been far riskier than simply not voting down the Tories and letting Parliament continue to function, if the pensions were indeed the priority of the Bloc.

Supporting a coalition and signing an agreement that would severely limit Gilles Duceppe's range of manoeuvre to save the pensions of a half-dozen MPs sounds a bit rich, when instead Duceppe could have just bided his time and see where things went without committing his party to anything.

I imagine this whole line of thought was spurred by that Ian MacDonald article a few days ago. Did he cover this aspect?